“Mr Trump, is Todd doing a good job?”

So shouted a pool reporter outside a Manhattan courtroom Tuesday afternoon shortly after Trump’s lead attorney, Todd Blanche, started cross examining former fixer turned prosecution witness, Michael Cohen, in his criminal hush-money trial.

Trump did not reply to that question.

Indeed, this was the same question on everyone’s mind during cross-examination. Blanche tried to lob gotcha questions at Cohen. In turn, Cohen would retort with brief responses, spurring full-throated laughter in the overflow viewing room.

“On April 23, you went on TikToK and called me a ‘crying little shit?’” Blanche asked, in the first of many an awkward salvo.

“Sounds like something I would say.”

“After the trial started, you referred to President Trump as a ‘dictator douche bag’, didn’t you?” Blanche asked at another point, referring to one of Cohen’s social media posts.

“Sounds like something I said.”

Did Cohen say he wanted to see Trump convicted, in a cage, “like a fucking animal?”

“I recall saying that,” Cohen said.

Did he call Trump a “boorish cartoon misogynist?” A “Cheeto-dusted cartoon villain?”

Cohen, calm as ever, similarly confirmed these statements sounded like things he would say.

To be clear, Blanche’s attempt to trip up Cohen by pointing out animosity toward Trump makes sense strategically. Prosecutors allege that Trump cast reimbursement for a $130,000 hush-money payment to the porn star Stormy Daniels as legal expenses for Cohen, constituting falsification of business records.

Cohen’s testimony put Trump squarely at the center of this alleged scheme, with him telling jurors Tuesday that he paid Daniels “to ensure that the story would not come out, would not affect Mr Trump’s chances of becoming president of the United States”

“At whose direction, and on whose behalf, did you commit that crime?” prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asked him.

“On behalf of Mr Trump,” Cohen said.

So Blanche needs Cohen to look bad, to mitigate the damage of these statements.

“You were actually obsessed with President Trump, weren’t you?” Blanche asked.

“I don’t know if I would characterize it as obsessed, but I admired him tremendously.”

“You publicly said he was a good man?”

Yes.

“You said that he’s a man who cares deeply about this country?”

“I said that,” Cohen responded.

“That he’s a man who tells it straight?” Cohen said, “Yes, sir.”

“And that all he wants to do is make this country great again?”

“Sounds right.”

“At that time, you weren’t lying, right?”

“At that time, I was knee-deep into the cult of Donald Trump, yes,” Cohen said.

Blanche asked Cohen about items that are shown on his podcast’s website, including a shirt with Trump in an orange jumpsuit, which he showed in court. He also showed a photo of a coffee mug that reads: “Send him to the Big House not the White House.”

That’s also a reference to President Trump, correct?

“Correct,” Cohen said.

Didn’t Cohen wear that shirt on his TikTok channel last week? Wasn’t he encouraging people to buy it?

“At the merch store,” Cohen said.

Even when Blanche got Cohen to admit that he wanted to see Trump convicted, he answered with a comically underwhelming: “Sure.”

So eyebrow-raising were Blanche’s initial questions to Cohen – what did he say about him, the attorney, and his associate, another Trump attorney? – that Judge Juan Merchan appeared irked.

“Why are you making this about yourself?” Merchan asked Blanche during a sidebar after this first set of questions. Blanche, for that matter, insisted, “I’m not making it about myself, your honor,” and said he had the right to press Cohen on bias against both his client and lawyers.

“Please, don’t make it about yourself,” Merchan instructed at the sidebar’s conclusion.

Trump, who appeared to nod off repeatedly throughout Cohen’s testimony, did not seem disturbed by the day’s developments. As he left court for the day, Trump told the reporter pool: “It was a very, very good day.”

Blanche will resume his cross-examination of Blanche on Thursday. He told the court that he expects his cross will take all day.

Is there a surer bet in football than Pep Guardiola’s Manchester City doing what they need to do – in other words, win and keep winning – when they have the Premier League title within their grasp?

On the three previous occasions that they have been involved in neck‑and-neck races for the line under Guardiola – the margin for error slim to non-existent – they have never slipped. Their winning sequences have been long and ­devastating. Here we are again, City closing on yet another title, a sixth in total under Guardiola, this victory an eighth in a row when the pressure is at its most acute.

For one night only, everybody connected to Arsenal had turned into Tottenham fans. They were des­perate for their hated rivals to do something neighbourly. Any kind of result for Spurs would have kept Arsenal on top of the table before the final set of fixtures on Sunday.

It did not happen because this is not how it goes with City, ^­however close it was in the final stages, ­however excruciating it must have been for Arsenal to watch. Because with City leading through an Erling Haaland goal shortly after the second-half restart, Spurs had the chances to equalise.

Stefan Ortega was the unexpected City hero. Guardiola’s starting goalkeeper, Ederson, had been forced off with a facial injury after a shud­dering collision with Cristian Romero. ­Ederson did not want to come off; he was incandescent and took out his feelings with a kick at the seats in the technical area. Yet everyone at City would have reason to thank Ortega.

The goalkeeper made a huge block to deny Dejan Kulusevski, on as a Spurs substitute, before ­keeping him out again at close quarters. But that was trumped in the 86th ­minute when Brennan ­Johnson robbed Manuel Akanji and sent Son Heung‑min clean through. With north London holding its breath for so many reasons, Ortega saved again.

Guardiola had thrown himself to the ground in anticipation of Son scoring as everybody expected him to do. He has hurt City on many ­occasions in the past. But when Ortega blocked, Ange Postecoglou raged at the heavens. It was the ­latest illustration of Spurs’ achilles heel under Postecoglou – the frequency with which they have failed to master the big moments.

City had survived and they enjoyed a calm finale when Haaland made it 2‑0 from the penalty spot after Pedro Porro had fouled another substitute, Jérémy Doku. The move was sparked by the excellent Phil Foden; he had also been involved in the ­opening goal and City will be crowned again if – or surely when – they beat West Ham on Sunday.

Spurs’ Champions League hopes are over; they will need a point at Sheffield United on the last day to ensure fifth place and a Europa League finish and it was Aston Villa who were confirmed as the Premier League’s final representative in Europe’s premier competition. Their delight at a first qualification since they played in the old European Cup in 1982-83 knew no bounds. City also celebrated wildly.

It had been a gripping evening, the subplots bubbling furiously, chief among them the one that talked to who the Spurs fans would be sup­porting. On one level, it was incre­dibly strange, given that they were shooting for a Champions League ­finish; on another, it was entirely logical because, well, it was Arsenal.

Guardiola had needed time to work things out because ­Postecoglou sprang surprises with his tactics, even if the emphasis on attack endured, on taking risks. Missing eight injured players, including three left-backs, Postecoglou had asked Micky van de Ven to shuffle over from central defence to fill the problem position. He also started with a new-look box midfield, with his attackers, Johnson and Son, high and wide.

The atmosphere in the Spurs seats was best described as subdued. ­Perhaps the home fans were simply ­trying to process what Postecoglou was doing. It was impossible to say that it did not work. Or perhaps it was something else.

City had their moments in the first half, even if some of them were nearly but not quite in terms of ­finding the killer pass. Foden unloaded a volley after a Pierre-Emile Højbjerg slice that Guglielmo Vicario saved ­brilliantly; Josko Gvardiol volleyed off target from a difficult angle. On the stroke of half-time, Radu Dragusin celebrated wildly after heading clear a goalbound Bernardo Silva shot.

City made errors on the ball, uncharacteristic ones that added to the weird vibe and Spurs had a few flickers before the interval, the biggest one coming early on when ­Rodrigo Bentancur extended Ederson.

City played with greater intensity after half-time, Kevin De Bruyne fully extending Vicario. Spurs almost led, Ederson denying Son at close quarters and then City did. Foden made it happen, winning the ball, getting away up the left and crossing. When it went all the way through, Silva ushered in De Bruyne and he fed ­Haaland. “Are you watching ­Arsenal?” the Spurs fans chanted.

The tension simmered. Bentancur raged when replaced by Kulusevski, kicking the seats as Ederson would do. It was Ortega who would make the difference.

The US, Germany and other countries are putting the climate crisis at the heart of their national security plans but the UK is failing to do likewise, experts have told the government.

Extreme weather and heat are killing increasing numbers of people, damaging economies and forcing millions around the world to flee their homes, adding to an already unstable geopolitical situation, MPs were told on Tuesday at a select committee hearing.

The climate crisis has become a “threat multiplier” that can add to instability and the risk of unrest in many countries and is therefore an international security issue, parliament’s environmental audit committee was told. The increasing dangers of floods, droughts and other damage to vital infrastructure also makes the climate crisis a national security problem within the UK.

But while the US has taken a “whole government” approach to the crisis, ordering the security services to focus on climate risks in their assessments, the UK has lagged behind, according to experts giving evidence.

Erin Sikorsky, the director of the Center for Climate and Security in the US, said: “The US government has put climate change and national security at the front of its foreign security policy agenda under [president Joe] Biden. The Department of Homeland Security has been involved.”

Even though most of the Republican party leadership and the former president Donald Trump have been vehemently opposed to action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, when it comes to national security there has been cooperation on the climate. “It has really been a bipartisan issue for over a decade,” Sikorsky said.

Germany has also integrated climate considerations into all government departments. Kira Vinke, of the German Council on Foreign Relations thinktank, said. “[There has been a] whole government approach, seeing it through a national security and human security lens.”

In the UK, however, not enough has been done to adapt to the impacts of extreme weather and prepare for future risks, said Lady Brown, the chair of the adaptation subcommittee at the government’s statutory adviser, the Climate Change Committee.

“We are not seeing implementation and action,” she said. “We are not very ready at all [for the impacts of extreme weather].”

Helen Adams, a senior lecturer on disaster risk reduction at King’s College London, said part of the problem in the UK was that there was not enough interest in the issue from Downing Street.

“We are not acting at scale, things are not getting to a high enough level [of government],” she said. “It has to come from the top down.” Stark warnings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body of the world’s leading climate scientists, were “not getting to the highest level”, she warned.

Rishi Sunak, the prime minister, made his biggest speech yet on national security on Monday in which he said that the UK faced turmoil at home and abroad.

“More will change in the next five years than in the last 30,” he said. “I’m convinced that the next few years will be some of the most dangerous yet transformational our country has ever known … There are storms ahead. The dangers are all too real.”

Yet he failed even to mention the climate crisis in his analysis, despite the world’s leading scientists and many other governments highlighting that rapidly intensifying global heating is one of the biggest risks the world faces.

On climate policy and the target to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions, his only words were negative: “In a more unstable world, where dictators like Putin have held us to ransom over energy prices, I reject the ideological zeal of those who want us to adopt policies that go further, faster than any other country, no matter the cost or disruption to people’s lives.”

House Democrats have launched an investigation into a meeting between oil company executives and Donald Trump at his Mar-a-Lago home and club last month, following reports that the former president offered to dismantle Biden’s environmental rules and requested $1bn in contributions to his presidential campaign.

Democrats on the House oversight committee late on Monday evening sent letters to nine oil executives requesting information on their companies’ participation in the meeting.

“Media reports raise significant potential ethical, campaign finance, and legal issues that would flow from the effective sale of American energy and regulatory policy to commercial interests in return for large campaign contributions,” the Maryland congressman Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the committee, wrote in the letters.

The investigation comes after the Washington Post broke the news of the dinner meeting, where Trump spoke in front of more than 20 fossil fuel executives from companies including Chevron, Exxon and Occidental Petroleum.

It was reported that Trump said steering $1bn into his campaign would be a “deal” for the companies because of the costs they would avoid under him. The former president offered in a second term to immediately end the Biden administration’s freeze on permits for new liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, while auctioning off more oil drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico and reversing drilling restrictions in the Alaskan Arctic, among other promises.

Oversight Democrats addressed letters to the CEOs of oil giants Chevron and Exxon, liquefied natural gas company Cheniere Energy, and fossil fuel firms Chesapeake Energy, Continental Resources, EQT Corporation, Occidental Petroleum and Venture Global.

They also sent an inquiry to the head of the American Petroleum Institute (API), the fossil fuel industry’s top lobbying arm in the US.

Asked about the investigation, API spokesperson Andrea Woods said the organization “meets with policymakers and candidates from across the political spectrum on topics important to our industry”.

Reports of the meeting are especially troubling, Raskin wrote in the letters, in light of revelations in Politico earlier last week that stated the oil industry is writing up “ready-to-sign executive orders” for Trump aimed at increasing gas exports, slashing drilling costs and increasing offshore oil leases.

He asked the executives to provide the names and titles of any company representatives who attended the Mar-a-Lago meeting, copies of materials shared with the attendees, descriptions of rules and policies discussed at the event, and an account of financial contributions to the Trump campaign made at the event or afterward.

The junior senator from Rhode Island, Sheldon Whitehouse, who chairs the Senate budget committee, has expressed interest in launching an investigation into the meeting as well. “Trump’s offer of a blatant quid pro quo to oil executives is practically an invitation to ask questions about Big Oil’s political corruption and manipulation,” he said in an emailed statement.

Compared with Raskin’s, Whitehouse’s investigation would have a significant advantage: if the companies refuse to turn over information, the Senate budget committee can file subpoenas. Because Republicans have a House majority, House Democrats do not have the power to subpoena documents.

A joint investigation by the Senate budget committee and House oversight Democrats revealed last month that big oil admits that it spent years covering up the dangers of burning fossil fuels, and that major oil companies lobbied against climate laws and regulations they have publicly claimed to support.

“Fossil fuel malfeasance will cost Americans trillions in climate damages, and the budget committee is looking at how to ensure the industry cannot simply buy off politicians in order to saddle taxpayers with the bill,” said Whitehouse.

Re your article (British Gas boss says all UK households should be forced to fit smart meters, 8 May), after being harassed by email, text, telephone, letters and finally doorstepping, and being told that we had to get smart meters for safety reasons, we relented and spent a fun day at home with the fitter. The smart meters don’t work; they never worked. Apparently they don’t work in our type of house.

The European Space Agency might be able to wake up the satellite Rosetta 673m kilometres away, but our power supplier cannot wake up our smart meters. Sorry, I have to rush, they want another meter reading. You see, they are experiencing a high level of calls so no one can answer the phone.
Jim Fleming
Edinburgh

Smart meters are only useful to customers if the visual display unit placed in each home actually works so as to enable householders to monitor fuel consumption. If it doesn’t, energy firms can refuse to repair the display unit if they have been installed by an earlier energy supplier, or if they have been put in over a year ago. Appeals to the energy ombudsman are fruitless. With more than 4m smart meters known to be malfunctioning, this is very much a one-way street exercise, primarily benefiting mammoth energy suppliers.
Andrew Warren
Cambridge

One problem is that installation teams and power companies don’t seem to communicate with each other, hence the dismal litany of misunderstandings and repeated emails, all asking for the same information, and requests to take pictures of the meter and its details – something I imagine the installer should have done. I blame Margaret Thatcher, but then I blame her for most things.
David Redshaw
Saltdean, East Sussex

Riot police used teargas to disperse protesters outside Georgia’s parliament and MPs brawled inside as a “foreign agents” bill – condemned as a Kremlin-inspired act of repression – was passed into law.

The bill was backed by 84 MPs to 30 despite western pressure and the rolling protests that have brought hundreds of thousands of people on to the streets of the capital, Tbilisi.

A number of protesters were treated by medics after teargas was used on a noisy but seemingly peaceful crowd of a few thousand people, while squads of police dragged some individuals away.

The violence spread into the chamber, with a dozen MPs fighting and one MP, from the governing Georgian Dream party, being held back by security guards as he violently lurched at the chair of the main opposition, Levan Khabeishvili.

Under the legislation adopted on Tuesday, media or civil society groups in Georgia that receive more than 20% of their funding from abroad will have to register as “organisations serving the interests of a foreign power”.

The US state department has called the bill “Kremlin-inspired”, as it has echoes of legislation introduced into the Russian statute books in 2012 by Vladimir Putin, which many people say has been used to silence critics.

The president of Georgia, Salome Zourabichvili, has said she would veto the law, but the governing party has sufficient numbers in parliament to overrule her.

Georgia’s prime minister, Irakli Kobakhidze, earlier on Tuesday met the US assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, Jim O’Brien, in Tbilisi to discuss Washington’s concerns.

The prime minister’s office said Kobakhidze had “explained to Jim O’Brien the need to adopt the law On Transparency of Foreign Influence” and reiterated the “readiness of the leadership team to carefully consider all legal comments of international partners within the framework of the veto procedure.”

Kobakhidze said on Monday that O’Brien had also requested a meeting with the billionaire oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili, the honorary chair of the ruling Georgian Dream party, who is widely thought to drive government policy.

He said Ivanishvili – who made his fortune in Russia – rejected the request on the grounds that the US had frozen $2bn (£1.59bn) of his funds.

The European Commission on Tuesday restated its position that the new law would undermine Georgia’s application to join the European Union. “EU member countries are very clear that if this law is adopted it will be a serious obstacle for Georgia in its European perspective,” it said.

Tina Bokuchava, parliamentary leader of the opposition United National Movement said: “Today’s vote will focus minds on the urgent need for regime change in Georgia. With elections to look forward to in October, I am confident that the unity seen on our streets in recent weeks will prove a watershed moment in our nation’s history.

“Our rightful place is in Europe – but the Ivanishvili stranglehold must be broken first if this dream is to be realised.”

On Monday, students from 30 Georgian universities joined the protests and went on strike, backed by lecturers.

Irakli Beradze, 22, a student in Tblisi, holding up a sign saying, “Russian can’t gaslight us, we have gas masks”, said that he and thousands of others “would not let Russia have our country”.

But in a speech on Tuesday, a Georgian Dream MP, Archil Talakvadze, called critics of the new law a “radical and anti-national political opposition united by political vendetta”.

“But nothing and nobody can stop the development of our country,” he added.

Elite French police forces are hunting gunmen who rammed into a prison van, killing at least two prison officers and allowing the inmate they were transporting to escape.

A police source told Agence France-Presse three officers were killed and two others wounded in the attack. Another source close to the case, who also asked not to be named, said two prison officers had been killed and three wounded.

The incident took place late morning at a road toll in Incarville in the Eure region of northern France, another source close to the case added.

The inmate was being transported between the towns of Rouen and Evreux in Normandy.

A police source said several individuals, who arrived in two vehicles, rammed the police van and then fled. One of them was wounded, the police source said.

It was not immediately clear how many attackers there were in total.

“Everything is being done to find the perpetrators of this crime,” the president, Emmanuel Macron, wrote on X. “We will be uncompromising,” he added, describing the attack as a “shock”.

The justice minister, Éric Dupond-Moretti, confirmed the attack on the prison convoy and said on X he was immediately heading to a crisis cell at his ministry.

“I am frozen with horror at the veritable carnage that took place at the Incarville toll,” said Alexandre Rassaert, the head of the Eure region council. “I hope with all my heart that that the commando team of killers which carried out this bloody attack will be arrested quickly.”

A unit of the GIGN special police force has been dispatched to apprehend the suspects.

Traffic was stopped on the A154 motorway where the incident took place.

The interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, wrote on X that he had ordered the activation of France’s Epervier plan, a special operation launched by the gendarmerie in such situations.

“All means are being used to find these criminals. On my instructions, several hundred police officers and gendarmes were mobilised,” he said.

BFMTV, quoting a source close to the investigation, said the 30-year-old inmate had been convicted last week and sentenced to 18 months in prison over robberies in 2019.

It said he had also been charged with murder over a 2022 killing linked to drug trafficking.

A source close to the case, speaking to AFP, identified the inmate as Mohamed A. born in 1994.

Law and order is a major issue in French politics ahead of next month’s European elections and the incident caused fierce reactions from politicians, especially the far right.

“It is real savagery that hits France every day,” claimed Jordan Bardella, the top candidate for the far-right National Rally, which is leading opinion polls for the elections.

There is no evidence of widespread abuse of the UK’s graduate visa route, the government’s immigration advisers have concluded, despite repeated claims from senior Conservatives that it is being exploited to enter the jobs market.

The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) said the graduate visa entitlement – allowing international students to work for two or three years after graduating – should remain in place. Members said the risks of abuse were relatively low and “not undermining” the integrity and quality of the higher education system.

The decision was greeted with relief by vice-chancellors, who have warned that abolishing the graduate visa would spell financial turmoil for the sector. But higher education leaders said they still feared No 10 could cherrypick elements of the report to justify a further crackdown.

The home secretary, James Cleverly, commissioned the review amid a growing clamour in Tory circles that graduate visas were being abused to gain access to employment.

Last week, Robert Jenrick, a former immigration minister, published a report with the Centre for Policy Studies thinktank that called for the graduate visa to be abolished, claiming it “allowed people to come and work in the gig economy and on very low wages”.

In a forthright response, the committee chair, Prof Brian Bell, said: “Our review recommends the graduate route should remain as it is, and is not undermining the quality and integrity of the UK’s higher education system.

“The graduate route is a key part of the offer that we make to international students to come and study in the UK. The fees that these students pay helps universities to cover the losses they make in teaching British students and doing research. Without those students, many universities would need to shrink and less research would be done.”

The committee said:

• There is concern about potential exploitation of both student and graduate visa holders due to poor practices by certain agents who recruit students on to courses and may be mis-selling UK higher education, but this is a separate issue from abuse of the rules of the graduate route.

• 114,000 graduate route visas were granted for main applicants in 2023 with a further 30,000 granted for dependants.

• The use of the graduate route is concentrated among four nationalities: the top four – India, Nigeria, China and Pakistan – account for 70% of all graduate visas with India accounting for over 40%.

Graduate visa holders are initially “overrepresented in lower-paid work” but their outcomes improve over time, the report said.

The MAC review was unable to assess the risk of overstaying due to a lack of Home Office data.

Alex Proudfoot, the chief executive of the representative body Independent Higher Education, said: “We urge the government to swiftly confirm they will follow their experts’ recommendation that the graduate visa be retained in its current form, and commit afresh to working with the education sector to maximise the benefits that international students bring.”

Tim Bradshaw, the chief executive of the Russell Group of leading research universities, said: “The overall message from the MAC is that the graduate route is achieving its objectives as set out by the government. We would therefore urge ministers to end the uncertainty and confirm as soon as possible that the route will continue in its entirety.”

In February, Universities UK (UUK) said it would review international student admissions processes after the allegations of “bad practice” by agents recruiting overseas students.

The MAC has recommended the government should establish a mandatory registration system for international recruitment agents, and universities should be required to publish data on their use of agents to “help protect the integrity” of the UK higher education system.

The review was launched in March after Cleverly instructed the committee, which gives independent advice to the government, to investigate “any evidence of abuse” of the graduate route, “including the route not being fit for purpose”, and to look at which universities were producing graduates who used the route.

Vivienne Stern, the chief executive of UUK, said: “The MAC’s recommendation that the graduate route should remain on its current terms is extremely important and welcome.

“The uncertainty caused by the decision to review the visa has been toxic,” she said. “We hope and expect that government now listens to the advice they have been given and provides categorical reassurance that the graduate visa is here to stay.”

A government spokesperson said: “We are committed to attracting the best and brightest to study at our world-class universities, whilst preventing abuse of our immigration system, which is why the home secretary commissioned an independent review of the graduate route.

“We have already taken decisive action to address unsustainable levels of migration and our plans are working, with a 24% drop in visa applications across key routes in the first three months of this year, compared with the same period last year.

“We are considering the review’s findings very closely and we will respond fully in due course.”

Joost Klein, the Netherlands’ Eurovision contestant who was disqualified from the competition just hours before the grand final, will probably be charged with making illegal threats, Swedish police have said.

The 26-year-old favourite to win was expelled from the competition in Malmö, unprecedented in the 68-year history of Eurovision, after a female member of the production crew made a complaint about an alleged “backstage incident” to Swedish police.

Police spokesperson Jimmy Modin told the Guardian that their investigation was over and that a decision on the charges should come “within the next couple of weeks”. He did not say what the nature of the alleged threats were.

“We expect there will probably be a prosecution,” Emil Andersson, the police officer in charge of the case, told Swedish broadcaster SVT. He said an “accelerated prosecution”, a process that takes around six to eight weeks, will be likely as the altercation did not involve a more serious crime.

The Sydsvenska daily, a Malmö newspaper, said that the crime of making threats usually leads to fines upon conviction.

After Klein was expelled, Dutch broadcaster Avrotros said it was “shocked” by the decision and said that while Klein made a “threatening move” towards a female camera operator, he had not touched her.

“Against the clearly made agreement, Joost was filmed when he had just gotten off stage and had to rush to the green room. At that moment, Joost repeatedly indicated that he did not want to be filmed. This wasn’t respected,” Avrotros said.

The broadcaster claimed it had offered “several solutions” to the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), which runs Eurovision, but Klein was ejected anyway.

The Guardian has gone to Klein and Avrotros for comment.

Organisers would not give more detail of the alleged incident during the competition, but clarified that it “did not involve any other performer or delegation member” due to rumours it had involved Israel’s delegation, amid tensions between contestants around the Israel-Gaza war.

When Israeli singer Eden Golan was told she did not have to answer a journalist’s question about whether her presence “posed a risk”, Klein interrupted to ask: “Why not?”, not long before he was disqualified.

On Monday, the EBU issued a statement amid criticism over how the famously apolitical song contest handled tensions around the Israel-Gaza war, saying that they “regret” that some delegations “didn’t respect the spirit of the rules”.

“We spoke to a number of delegations during the event regarding various issues that were brought to our attention,” the EBU said.

“The EBU’s governing bodies will, together with the heads of delegations, review the events surrounding the [Eurovision song contest] in Malmö to move forward in a positive way and to ensure the values of the event are respected by everyone.”

The EBU confirmed several contestants and delegations had lodged complaints. Portugal’s national broadcaster RTP has complained about a delay in posting their contestant Iolanda’s performance to YouTube after the final, with the EBU saying the delay was due to Iolanda having her nails painted designs inspired by the keffiyeh – Palestinian scarves used to show support for the country.

Ireland’s contestant, Bambie Thug, also confirmed they made multiple complaints in the run-up to the final and accused Israeli broadcaster Kan of “inciting violence” against them during its coverage of their performance.

During the first semi-final, a Kan commentator said Bambie Thug had “spoken negatively about Israel”, adding: “But we can talk about that later. Prepare your curses.”

This may have been a reference to a lyric about placing a hex on an ex in Bambie Thug’s song, but the performer said they felt it crossed a line.

“The broadcaster [Kan] has disobeyed the rules and I hope next year [Israel] won’t be able to compete because of that,” Bambie Thug told reporters after the contest.

Some contestants described the atmosphere behind the scenes this year as “tense” and “horrible”, as thousands protested outside on the streets of Malmö calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.

In a post on Instagram after the grand final, Golan wrote: “To say it was easy would be a lie. But with your support and love it gave me the strength to continue and put on the absolute best performance I knew I can do.”

Lithuania’s entrant, Silvester Belt, who performed after Golan at the grand final, called it a “traumatic experience” on social media, writing: “Going after that country, with the crowd being so intense, was one of the worst things I had to go through. I really did the best that I could in this situation.”

Swiss singer Nemo, who won the contest with their song The Code, said in a press conference after that the experience was “really intense” and that they felt “maybe Eurovision needs fixing a little bit”.

The European Commission also criticised a decision by the EBU to ban audience members from waving the EU flag at the grand final, calling it “completely regrettable” and “mind-blowing”.

Associated Press contributed to this report.

A multibillion-pound “net zero” project backed by two of the world’s biggest fossil fuel firms will be responsible for more than 20m tonnes of planet-heating carbon over its lifetime, according to research submitted to the UK government.

The Net Zero Teesside scheme to build a new gas-fired power station in north-east England is backed by BP and Equinor and says it will use carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to capture up to 95% of its emissions and bury them beneath the North Sea.

But according to evidence submitted to the government, even if the project’s claims for its carbon capture and storage facility prove accurate, the gas power station would still be responsible for more than 20m tonnes of carbon pollution over its lifetime.

Andrew Boswell, an energy analyst who carried out the research based on Net Zero Teesside’s own figures, said: “When a project produces over 20m tonnes of carbon pollution, it is simply wrong, and misleading, to call it ‘net zero’.”

Boswell calculated that once the “upstream emissions” associated with the project, such as extraction, refining, transportation and methane emissions from the gas – including liquefied natural gas from the US – were taken into account, the power station would emit more than 20.3m tonnes of carbon pollution.

In February the project was given the green light by the energy secretary Claire Coutinho, despite Boswell’s calculations being acknowledged as correct.

A spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero did not dispute the figures but defended the scheme, saying CCS has been described as a “necessity not an option” by the government’s climate advisers. “Power stations with these facilities will provide a stable energy supply, not dependent on the weather, with low emissions. This will be vital to support a secure, largely renewables-based energy system in 2050.”

They added the government’s £20bn investment in carbon capture and storage would drive economic growth and support up to 50,000 jobs.

Boswell, backed by the green industrialist Dale Vince, is taking the government to court to get a judicial review of the decision, which they say falls foul of climate commitments

Vince said: “This is a fake net zero project from two of the world’s biggest fossil fuel companies. How on earth can polluting the atmosphere with 20m tonnes be net zero? The project should not have been allowed to go ahead and that’s why we’re supporting the legal challenge against this fossil-fuelled deception.”

Aside from the upstream emissions, scientists are also sceptical of the efficiency of the carbon capture technology that is at the heart of the Teesside project’s emissions’ calculations. The process aims to capture emissions, rather than release them into the atmosphere, and bury them underground.

A spokesperson for the Net Zero Teesside project said it would help the UK government meet its net zero targets by capturing significant CO₂ emissions. They said there were more than 40 CCS facilities in operation around the world. “National policy is clear, a key component of transitioning to a low carbon economy is the phasing-out of unabated gas generation through the deployment of gas-fired electricity generation with CCS.”

This month the government’s climate action plan was ruled unlawful in the high court, with the judge finding the government’s proposed measures would fail to meet the UK’s climate goals.

Mike Childs, the head of policy at Friends of the Earth, said: “It’s extremely optimistic to claim that CCS would capture 95% of this power stations emissions … the high court found that the government climate action plan was unlawful and ruled it must produce a new one in line with its targets. It’s fanciful to believe that gas-fired power stations with CCS are compatible with a carbon reduction strategy that is fit for purpose.”